Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Unfortunately this thread hasn't been the poster's "finest hour" and possibly he will think again about his contribution?

Not sure if you are referring to me, but if you are, I will gladly admit I've been "rethinking" my participation (not contribution) even before I jumped into the fray. I knew perfectly well that walking into a church and telling people there is no God, is, as a minimum, futile. And yet, against my better judgment, I did it, hoping, (in vain, as it turns out) that we can at least tolerate, if not respect, people with different opinions and approaches than our own. The amount of venom and name calling I got in return speaks more about the "strength" of your arguments than the arguments themselves.

Who gives a sh*t about autofocus on macro lenses? They aren't designed for fast AF - due to the long focus throw. "Some" AF is handy if you are using the lens as a short-telephoto general purpose lens, and in most conditions the typical s-l-o-w AF is fine, particularly if you help the lens by using the focus limiter.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but if you are, I will gladly admit I've been "rethinking" my participation (not contribution) even before I jumped into the fray. I knew perfectly well that walking into a church and telling people there is no God, is, as a minimum, futile. And yet, against my better judgment, I did it, hoping, (in vain, as it turns out) that we can at least tolerate, if not respect, people with different opinions and approaches than our own. The amount of venom and name calling I got in return speaks more about the "strength" of your arguments than the arguments themselves.

I'm glad you jumped into the fray Slobodan so I wouldn't have been alone. Thanks. Alan

Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

He's Mister Cop-Out with that line.

Quote

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

He's like the photography equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper with their disregard for facts, hypocrisy and controversial nonsense - but it's the newspaper website with the highest no. of page views in world now apparently.

He's Mister Cop-Out with that line.He's like the photography equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper with their disregard for facts, hypocrisy and controversial nonsense - but it's the newspaper website with the highest no. of page views in world now apparently.

You know what's the most viewedTeevee chanel here?Tv5You know who owns tv5?Berlusconi...Have you ever seen the content theyProvide?Check it out...It's worth

You sure? Wiki says something else, and Berlusconi did own LaCinq a while ago, which was ohyeahgodawwwwful, exactly the kind of please-do-not-use-your-brain content at the core of the topic (TV channels are usual suspects for that), but pushed to the extreme... I don't watch any teevee since two decades and so won't comment on TV5.

Still lurking in case a few more wagons happen to ride into the crash site and dismantel...You sure? Wiki says something else, and Berlusconi did own LaCinq a while ago, which was ohyeahgodawwwwful, exactly the kind of please-do-not-use-your-brain content at the core of the topic (TV channels are usual suspects for that), but pushed to the extreme... I don't watch any teevee since two decades and so won't comment on TV5.

Niko, not the french tv5, the spanish one.I'm french but currently live in Madrid.

Spanish tv5 belongs to mediaset that belongsTo fininvest that belongs to Berlusconi.

You have no idea about the level of crapperiesNon-sense, polemic, low profile programs, IMean you have to see it to beleive it. Verdict: high audience.

Nope, not going to happen (a retraction), as there are some seriously stupid, closed minded people who actually believe what I wrote is true and can't grasp a fact based reality.

It's not about whether or not the analogy is accurate. There is a view that using the holocaust analogy in (relatively) trivial circumstances trivializes the holocaust. That was certainly my reaction when I read your post. I am sure it wasn't your intention.

It's not about whether or not the analogy is accurate. There is a view that using the holocaust analogy in (relatively) trivial circumstances trivializes the holocaust. That was certainly my reaction when I read your post. I am sure it wasn't your intention.

There's nothing trivial about the holocaust or people who don't believe it, or people who can't fathom the idea of fact based reality which some here subscribe. And I'll further point out that I have distant relatives who lost their lives in holocaust! Maybe you do, maybe you don't but don't read into my analogy I believe this is trivial.

There's nothing trivial about the holocaust or people who don't believe it, or people who can't fathom the idea of fact based reality which some here subscribe. And I'll further point out that I have distant relatives who lost their lives in holocaust! Maybe you do, maybe you don't but don't read into my analogy I believe this is trivial.

I wasn't reading any such thing into your analogy, as an attentive reading of my post will make clear. The view I am alluding to that proper respect for the exceptional gravity of the holocaust makes it unseemly to refer to it simply to make an argument about Ken Rockwell, or any other matter as relatively unimportant as that. It is a fact that some people will react in that way, as I did. Doing so doesn't imply anything about your views on the holocaust. What is at issue is your choice of analogy. For me, it came across as "over the top" and hence as detracting from the force of your argument (with which I otherwise agree).